Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT September 19, □□□ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk BROWNSVILLE DIVISION PAMELA ZIOLKOWSKI MARGOLIS, § Plaintiff, § v. : Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-00162 JAMES B. NUTTER & COMPANY, et al., Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is the “Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” (“R&R”) (Docket No. 52) in the above-captioned case. The R&R recommended the Court grant James B. Nutter & Company’s (“JBNC”) “Motion to Dismiss” (Docket No. 24). With the Court’s leave, Pamela Z. Margolis (“Plaintiff”) filed late Objections to the R&R (“Plaintiff's Objections”) (Docket No. 57). Defendant timely responded. See Docket No. 58. Plaintiff's remaining claims! arise from JBNC’s alleged violation of The Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) regulations. See Docket No. 57 at 7, 9, and 12. However, HUD regulations do not create a private right of action unless the regulations are explicitly incorporated in the Deed of Trust. See Johnson v. World All. Fin. Corp.,

(Sth Cir. 2016). Plaintiff concedes the Deed of Trust did not explicitly incorporate HUD regulations but merely made references to “authorizations, notices, and requirements ... all with no reference made to any particular regulations.” /d. (emphasis in original). Thus, the remainder of Plaintiff's claims warrant dismissal. Johnson,

(citing Chandler v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 11—03831 SC,

, at *5-6 (N.D. Calif. Jan. 3, 2014), aff'd, 673 Fed. App’x 413 (9th Cir. 2016) (dismissing claim for a plaintiffs failure to identify “a particular provision ... incorporating HUD regulations.”)).

‘Plaintiff's Objections abandoned the following claims: (1) violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act; (2) wrongful foreclosure; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) age discrimination; (6) gender discrimination; (7) violation of § 50 of the Texas Constitution; (8) declaratory judgment; and (9) attorney’s fees. See Docket No. 57. ]

After a de novo review of the record, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Docket No. 52) in its entirety and GRANTS JBNC’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 24). The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections (Docket No. 57) and DISMISSES all claims against JBNC with prejudice. nr Signed on this day of Ser +2 M ber , 2019.

Rolangé Olvera Unitdd States District Judge